In this thread, we had a number of Bush apologists defending Bush’s claim to “political capital” by saying he never meant that to be a claim of a “mandate” in the election.
I see they trotted out that spurious notion that because he received more votes than any other candidate, his election constitutes a “mandate”. Apparently it escapes them that more people voted against Bush than they did against any candidate in history, he won by the smallest margin of any re-elected president, and has the lowest approval rating of any re-elected president.
Once again we see them relying on the tactic of repeating a lie relentlessly, hoping it will be accepted as the truth. It will not. If the the Bush agenda must rely on such self-delusion to garner support and suppress dissent within their own party, it is clear that they don’t have much faith in his proposals on their merits alone. It will interesting to see if they deal with the growing conflict among Republicans on Social Security reform, immigration reform and deficit reduction with more lies and deception.
Out of curiosity, what is ‘mandate’ taken to mean in the US?
It doesn’t mean that he has to have an overall majority of votes, to my mind. If Bush was elected, even by one vote more that another candidate, he thus has a legitimate mandate (from those who did vote for him). Is this not the case?
Oh my, a political party spinning something to make themselves look good? Say it isn’t so, Joe!
Mandate is a completely meaningless statement to begin with, does the fact they claim a mandate change anyone’s opinion of anything in any way? Aside from the fact that when I keep saying that word I start thinking of two gay guys going out for a night on the town.
Tighty Righties: “Bush had more people vote for him than anyone else in history!”
Loonie Lefties: “Bush had more people vote against him than anyone else in history!”
TR: “Bush has a mandate”
LL: “Bush has no mandate”
Then again this brings up a disturbing point, and essential relegates the democratic process to mob rule. If the other ‘side’ has more people than you, they’ve got a mandate and can do whatever they want.
So yes, Bush has received authorization from more than half of the voting populace to continue with bussiness as usual. Whether or not this is a good thing, or if he should trample on the sentiments of half of the nation, that’s another matter.
Tighty Righties: “Bush had more people vote for him than anyone else in history!”
Loonie Lefties: “Bush had more people vote against him than anyone else in history!”
Wierddave: I’m masturbating like a motherfuck!
TR: “Bush has a mandate”
LL: “Bush has no mandate”
WD: I’m masturbating like a motherfuck!
TR: “You suck”
LL: “No, you suck”
WD: I’m masturbating like a motherfuck!
Does Bush have any more power by getting 51% of the vote than he would if he had 49% of the vote? Assuming a 3rd party candidate got enough votes to ensure a Bush victory, of course.
Then it becomes sticky, and to be honest, I’m not quite sure. It seems to me that one requires a majority of votes to claim a mandate. To me that means a majority of all votes cast. However, I think it’s only fair to point out that the definition of mandate is rather ephemeral and hard to pin down. Does that 51% really mean that everybody authorizes Bush to do whatever he wants? I don’t think so, but a case could be made.
On this page, you can see the Time magazine cover from November 16th, 1992. It shows a large headshot of Bill Clinton with the headline “Mandate for Change.”
Recall that in that election, a majority of people voted against Clinton. He won with a plurality in the popular vote of about 43%.
Clinton was president for two terms, and had all the mandate he needed. Bush has a larger mandate, by the same measure.
Cease at once you scoundrel! While there is abundant evidence that the President is a liar, warmonger, and a bigot, there is no evidence at all that he is a homosexual!
I dunno Gobear, I’m pretty sure that if you offered to be part of the coalition of the willing, he’d make a deal. That way, at least, he wouldn’t have to bring up Poland.
